Cory Spartacus Booker hit with ethics complaint for fundraising off his filibuster

New Jersey Democrat Senator Cory Spartacus Booker (NJ) bloviated for a record-breaking 25 hours last week, said nothing of value or interest, and now he tried to raise money from his speech, according to The Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT), an ethics watchdog group.

The group filed the complaint on Tuesday alleging that the senator used his speech to raise campaign money and the Senate Select Committee on Ethics received the allegations showing that Booker sent a series of campaign messages to his supporters during and after his bloviating on the Senate floor. This included messages asking followers to "stand with Cory" during his speech by signing up for his email list and others that solicited contributions for Booker and the DNC from anyone "inspired" by his historic showing.

This tactic is in violation of long-standing ethics rules prohibiting congress members from using their official position for campaign purposes, FACT wrote in its complaint. 

If Booker's violation goes unpunished, the group warned, the Senate floor "will increasingly be seen as a campaign venue and treated as such."

"It is clear that Senator Booker's Senate floor speech had a campaign purpose," FACT said in its complaint. "During his speech, he sent a series of emails that campaigned and sought valuable supporter information and campaign contributions based on his Senate floor speech. Immediately after his speech, Booker sent an email that requested donations for his campaign and the DNC if the recipient liked what they saw him do on the Senate floor. There is no more direct of a tie between an official action and campaign solicitation."

The Senate's ethics rules "do not allow what is clearly performance art on the Senate floor for future political gain, whether that be for list-building or fundraising," the watchdog's executive director Kendra Arnold told the Washington Free Beacon. "I hope the Senate Ethics Committee will take action on this case and others like it to discourage other senators from fundraising off official actions and to maintain citizens' confidence in Congress."

Booker received widespread praise from the press and Democrats for his 25-hour floor speech, not so much for what he said than for the length of time he spent on the Senate floor without taking a break to pee or otherwise. 

But who knows? Depends.

Political pollster Frank Luntz said that Booker "may have changed the course of political history" with his speech. He believes his performance makes him the top dog for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028, but AOC and Jasmine Crockett disagree.

But Booker's speech wasn't a real filibuster in the traditional sense. It didn't obstruct any legislation and all he did was bash Trump's cuts to the federal workforce and yadda, yadda.

Mostly yadda, yadda.

"I pour my heart into these posts, and hopefully my writing has sparked something for you, I’d be thrilled and grateful if you’d treat me to a coffee over at Buy Me a Coffee – totally optional, of course!"

Tweet

Cori Bush (D) hit with ethics complaint re: abuse of government resources for her campaign

Squadette and Rep. Cori Bush (D-MO-BLM-LGBTQ+1) faces an ethics complaint that alleges she used government resources for campaign purposes. This, of course, is in violation of House rules, but since when did rules matter to the left?

The Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT) lodged the complaint on Thursday with the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) asking for a prompt investigation as to whether Bush misused government resources from a campaign social media account, and thus violated the rules.

[H/T Fox News Digital]

"Rep. Bush's abuse of official resources for political purposes shows a flagrant disregard for the law," FACT executive director Kendra Arnold told Fox News Digital. "These laws and ethics rules are in place to maintain the integrity of official proceedings, so members cannot leverage them for political advantage." 

"The violation we have documented in our complaint is clear and obvious, and after confirming through investigation, we hope the OCE moves swiftly to impose the proper penalty," Arnold told the outlet. 

FACT's complaint states that Bush "disrupted official House proceedings with outrageous and unprofessional behavior and then campaigned and fundraised off of it." 

But at least she didn't go all out anti-Israel at the time.

On July 31st, Bush promoted a C-SPAN video from her campaign's Twitter account showing her on the House floor shouting about "racist bills" as House Majority Leader Steve Scalise spoke. In the tweet, Bush added that the bills are also "sexist, patriarchal, xenophobic, classist, homophobic, and transphobic."

Of course the bills are nothing like she accused them of being, but nevertheless, Bush posted a link to donate to her campaign and that's the case against her.

House ethics rules prohibit congressional members from using official resources for campaign or political purposes and FACT noted that  "official resources" are anything taxpayers fund, including photographs and video from the House floor or committee proceedings.

In addition, politicians are to keep campaigns, official websites and social media accounts separate.

"The legal violation in this case is obvious and there are no facts that can excuse it—Bush used official House proceedings and resources for political purposes," the complaint states. "Video of official house floor proceedings is an official resource, and both using it for political purposes and posting it on a campaign social media account are violations of the ethics rules."

"It is irrelevant that Bush obtained this video from CSPAN because a Member cannot use official footage even if it is obtained or reposted from another entity," it continues. "The fact that Bush uses this video on her campaign social media account and directly fundraises off of it shows a complete disrespect for the law."

But due to Bush's Democratic Party affiliation, the worst outcome for her will likely be a rolling of the eyes and a clucking of the tongue by fellow socialists.



Tweet

Sens. Warren and Harris accused of fundraising violations over Kavanaugh

The Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT), a watchdog group, filed a Senate ethics complaint Monday on Senators Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren. They charge the two with sending out fundraising emails asking for donations to support their votes against Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Unfortunately for these two clowns, they made the money request before they cast their votes against him.

It's common for a vote and then ask supporters to back that decision with money, but FACT says asking for money ahead of the vote crosses the line into vote-buying.

FACT asked the Senate Ethics Committee to probe fundraising emails sent by Warren (D-Mass.) and Harris (D-Calif.). Warren's email said she was demanding a delay on the judge's confirmation vote and asked for donations for her 2018 election campaign. Harris' emails detailed several of her disgusting actions as a member of the Judiciary Committee, including her questioning of the president's pick for SCOTUS, and asking for money.

Senate rules prohibit senators from "cashing in" on using their official political positions for personal gain. But they all do it, and that's a fact.

FACT said linking promises of official action with campaign contributions violates that principle. Lucky for Warren and Harris, they have no principles.

"This is a clear violation of the Senate Ethics rules which safeguard against the appearance or actuality of elected officials 'cashing in' on their official positions for political purposes," Kendra Arnold, executive director of FACT said.

Spoke-pieces for both senators went into hiding and made no comment.


Please click the "Follow" button in the margin and be sure to get the latest Brain Flushings at a computer near you. Also, please visit the ads on this page because it helps the economy and me.

Tweet

Former U.S. Attorney sees a "red flag" with Hillary's email scandal

Eh, what's up, doc?

Beth Wilkinson is an attorney representing four main figures in the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton's email malpractice. This is what Matthew Whitaker, a former U.S. attorney and now running a government watchdog group calls a "red flag."

Wilkinson is representing former chief of staff Cheryl Mills; media gatekeeper Philippe Reines; Jake Sullivan policy adviser, and former aide Heather Samuelson, the person who helped Hillary decide which Clinton emails were the most damaging and therefore had to be destroyed before turning over to the State Department the 30,000 that remained.

"I think it would be a real red flag," Whitaker said, referring to the legal defense tactic. He is the executive director of the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT). He believes that having a single lawyer helps the four get their stories straight for the FBI interviews.

That would imply that something untoward was perpetrated by these four in service of the Clinton dynasty. Otherwise, what's the big deal? 

"The benefit is to have one lawyer's brain have all the knowledge of the various pieces and parts, and so each of those potential targets or subjects of the investigation get to share information across that same attorney--and quite frankly get their story to sync up and understand what other people know of the situation," Whitaker said.

Wilkinson is a Washington D.C. lawyer who's married to former NBC "Meet the Press" host David Gregory. When asked for comment, her office gave no immediate response as it has been their practice not to respond to the press on this case.

Whitaker explained that "All you're trying to do is seek the truth, and when someone is sharing a lawyer, you worry that the interview that you just did an hour ago with that attorney has been shared with the next witness and they can fix or reconcile their story to be the same."

Why that isn't illegal is anybody's guess--it ought to be. And while it isn't the norm, the legal representation hasn't been challenged by Justice Department officials, perhaps because, hey,  it's Hillary Clinton, after all.

In April, Cheryl Mills and Wilkinson blocked questions about Bryan Pagliano, Clinton's IT specialist and a key figure in the probe. Although Pagliano struck an immunity deal with the Justice Department last year, now he is seeking to invoke the Fifth Amendment right not to answer questions in the same Judicial Watch proceedings. That's what is known as wanting to have it both ways.

FACT is seeking the emails of Dennis Cheng, Clinton's former deputy chief of protocol at the State Department. His records may reveal a connection between the slush fund known as the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton's time as secretary of state. 

Cheng was the main person dealing with senior foreign government officials, and there were only a few emails of his among the 30,000 she turned over when she apparently felt comfortable to do so. Cheng was also a consultant to the William J. Clinton Foundation.

The plot sickens.


Tweet